Thank you for helping a lay person unravel the state of world today. Had to abandon legacy news since 2020. Anastasiia comments that ‘Petro Poroshenko…who Zelensky sanctioned kind of absurdly’. Was surprised at this comment, even then. Poroshenko may publicly support President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but today 06 March, an article in the Guardian states, and to which both have confirmed, Petro Poroshenko and Yulia Tymoshenko have held discussions with Trump’s entourage. Given this administration’s antipathy toward President Zelenskyy, it is not surprising and probably valid for the President to sanction Poroshenko.

Thank you, Scott, for bringing an outstanding podcast that is informative and adds that light-hearted touch. This was the first time I had the pleasure of listening to Michel’s expertise. Please ask him him to return on a regular basis. I look forward to listening to Rational Security in the New Year.

The podcast is just to irritating to listen to… microphone plosives are easy to fix. Do any of you listen to your own podcast to see if it’s professional sounding and try to make it less annoying???

Being flipping about a war where people try to sleep while air raid sirens go off because they’re being attacked by missiles and drones Every single night for 18 months seems to be poor form to me. This is not a laughing matter.

This week’s episode was great with Ben Wittes explaining the Middle East conflict. He (and his wife) understand it much more than the others, who operate from a very US-centric point of view. Bring him back permanently! I miss the old crew, it was funnier back then.

Mixed bag. The hosts have good chemistry and are usually well-informed and insightful. The show is best when it’s focused on foreign policy through the lens of national security/international law. But it’s increasingly turning into a discussion of domestic policy and politics. Now, you still could approach those topics from a national security law perspective, but we end getting a lot of political commentary instead. I feel bad for singling any one person out, but I’ve really struggled with Quinta. She seems to self-conceptualize as a serious, analysis-first thinker who adds value by delving deep into the issues. (There’s frequent genuflection to her superior grasp of new opinions, statutes, etc…) Yet that doesn’t match up with the reality of her analysis, which is always the bog standard, slightly left of center-left take. Quinta purports to be surprised by her own reactions—“I can’t believe how much I suddenly think the Court is full of right wing hacks”—but it’s always the same tone, the same direction, the same conclusions.

I love this show and have been a long time listener, so I share this criticism as a fan. Lately they have been drifting into discussions of US domestic politics without connects to national security and foreign policy. I come to this show to get analysis I can’t get anywhere else. I can get discussion about U.S. politics anywhere. Please stick to the areas the show specializes in and don’t drift off into run of the mill punditry!

Often the beltway smugness & holier than thou smirk ruins the often quality factual discussions about policy & natsec. Their treatment (like many others) of the ludicrous allegations abt Fani Willis especially not good — it has always been clear that it was a huge stretch that the GA Fulton Cty DA’s office had a conflict of interest— in the meaning of that term — and that the circus that followed was McAfee’s doing. Watching the hearings — just appalled by the racism & sexism & the holier than thou privileged white people analysis — these folks are at their worst when judging their lawyer peers. Unfortunate, as it can be good.

The discussion of the Georgia mess is a mess. Just another in the long list of special Lawfare people displaying how special they are and how dull the rest of us are. The difference here is the first time I’ve heard them hold forth on a topic with race involved. Ouch, they didn’t do well. I think Lawfare needs to do some work on itself.

It’s fine

I love Lawfare for its ultra-granular take on complex political issues. Maybe it’s unsurprising then I rather dislike the rambling, generalist approach of Rational Security, which feels like a more centrist, much less hip version of Pod Save America. Like many of these newsroom hangout shows, many words are spoken, but little is said. On Lawfare, the dry, legalistic approach to examining weighty political topics works as a perfect foil for the breathlessly emotional partisan news outlets. On this show, the Lawfare hosts try their hand at the very same approach to which they are usually an antidote, and in the process lose everything that makes their programming special. It turns out that 2 lawyers going deep on a single topic for 1 hour (Lawfare) makes for spectacular coherence and clarity which allows the listener to draw their own informed conclusions, whereas 4 lawyers offering their opinions on 3-4 news topics in under 90 minutes (Rat Sec) makes for a legalistic mess in which coherence and understanding of a given issue only recedes. The lawyer’s famous fear of being backed into a corner on a given issue prevents the hosts from offering clear, principled, unequivocal opinions on anything discussed, giving the show a kind of mushy, shapeless, go-nowhere quality which leaves me feeling exhausted and not an ounce better-informed in the end. It is worth noting that there is also a serious lack of social diversity on this program — it’s exceedingly white, male, upper-middle class New England collegiate — and that said homogeneity really does not suit an opinions show. It is desperate for some texture, some differing perspectives and angles, to lift the dowdy social atmosphere. The female voices on this show provide the only diversity here, and they also frequently provide this monochrome, somewhat droning show with its only daubs of color and levity. They also fly miles above the male hosts in terms of argument for the clarity of their positions. Editor Ben Wittes, while not from a different social set as the mainstay RS hosts, is a dramatically more dynamic, thoughtful, and colorful speaker than any of his contemporaries on the show, and brings a refreshing blast of life to the proceedings in his guest appearances, his own kind of diversity which also feels valuable. In conclusion, I love Lawfare, but this format does not suit.

This podcast wastes a lot of time with Quinta laughing about things that aren’t funny and the whole crew talking about their personal lives.

Why bother having a specialist or expert in a field come on for Scott to talk over them as if he knows more about the topic every time. It’s condescending and doesn’t elaborate on the topic beyond platforming his own opinions. Unsubbed.

Molly Reynolds is an insightful analyst? Her constant use of the interrogative declarative makes her difficult to listen to?

Excellent, measured discussion of the issues by Scott, Benjamin & Quinta in terms of background, current situation & potential future impact. However Alan’s readiness to commit war crimes is shocking to me — as well as his naive & emotional perceptions about the issue. Unworthy of the program & will affect how I assess his views going forward , but perhaps useful as they’re the sort of gut reactions that probably many hold. Happy to hear them dealt with soberly & pointedly by Benjamin & Scott — especially with regard to the war crimes framework. (Many of do in fact think the US committed war crimes in Afghanistan & elsewhere and as you note brought nothing good for decades as a result - many, many, many killed & US in a weaker position globally.) Also fyi that Scott & Alan are almost impossible to tell apart to my ears so I would appreciate either always having a “this is X here” or a direct questions that include their names.

The national/international security angle of this show naturally helps contextualize the So What of many current events. The hosts don't always agree, making for a more lively discussion. Good selection of guests. And I live for the occasional, deliciously heartfelt "I dunno, man" from Quinta. Keep it up!

Quinta is uncharismatic and too far left to listen to. Makes me sad to say, but have finally unsubscribed to the pod. It’s become to boring and just a liberal crying match.

First off I absolutely love rational security! I have nothing but high praise for the content, the expanded context of the issues involved and the way the hosts interact and present the topics. My only issue with the show is that none of the hosts are balanced in volume relative to each other. Some of the hosts can be incredibly hard to hear in certain listening environments causing me to turn up the volume to excessive levels followed by another host (Quinta I’m looking at you) who clearly speaks well into their microphone and nearly blows out the speakers in my car. RatSec host, Follow Quinta’s lead! RatSec producers can we get the individual mic volumes levels out a bit?

Ben, Tamara and Shane, Susan in absentia, You've kept us sane for years, the rational component of your podcast. Where's the Scotch? 3/16/2023 Update Ok, it's not a total fail, but I changed my rating from a 5 to a 4. Correction of no consequence: McCarthy was elected Speaker of the House on the 15th vote, not 13th. Has anyone ever had 15 job interviews for the same position by the same employer?

I love this podcast. On a show, they discussed the DOE report of their “low-confidence” assessment that the origins of COVID-19 was a Chinese lab leak. Names escape me, but two hosts argued the virtue of actually knowing/understanding the leak, wile a third played “devils-advocate” for each side. All parities connected to the heart of each argument. Well done, I’m a new subscriber for life!

Used to love the first version of RS. Ben Wittes, Shane Harris and Tammy were the best. I can't connect with the new hosts very much, sometimes they feel obnoxious and speak like spoiled rich kids. The show is OK but these days I mostly skip it.

This is an important podcast and is critical for a deep understanding of current events. At times, however, the conversation is so bloodless it feels like a graduate school example of what dialectics is. On the other hand, the titles are too cute and often inscrutable, and the intro is too labored and long. Just be yourself guys and gals. You have big shoes to fill, but nobody is comfortable if they don’t fit.

Besides good infos and insights into matters federal and events current, this is the only podcast that lets me use the playback speed control on my phone so that I can understand S.R. Anderson when he simultaneously speaks very rapidly and very softly. No one can swallow details like Mr. Anderson! Although sometimes it seems that he’s inspired others to emulate his cokehead-style delivery. Dear RatSec folk! Please resist the temptation to try to keep up with him! Maybe the episodes should be longer so he need not feel so rushed, or perhaps one of your excellent audio editors could do the speed and volume edits before the episodes are published. Just a thought … Thanks.

Why must I constantly raise and lower the volume depending on who’s speaking? Very provoking and ruins my enjoyment of the show. You can fix this.

I look forward to the development of the team for 2.0. Update: what a great team, still slightly snarky, but still thoughtful! Thank you for keeping the show going!

Scott talks so long without taking a breath, I can’t concentrate on what he’s actually saying. BREATHE Scott!!!

Just a quick thank you for your thoughtful, respectful and thorough conversations. Also I would like to agree with Alan, Willow was an amazing video!

What made the first incarnation of Rational Security so successful for me was the diversity of interests, opinions, background, and style that each panelist brought to the table—it felt inviting and warm, like even those of us without national security expertise were welcome to join the conversation. The current group of hosts hasn’t yet managed to emulate that successful formula. Sometimes it can feel like listening to a couple of guys in your college dorm who are intentionally excluding you from their conversation. I think a larger panel and more diverse group of guests could go a long way toward creating a more welcoming dynamic.

This podcast has become so cringe

Are facial contortions audible? Yes. Indeed they are. And their presence in the podcast reflects how the spirited discussion brings out a variety of challenging perspectives that each enriches my own. Appreciated.

Good content and discussion, but, like, and I mean, like, this as constructive as possible, but like, I hope law school, like, hopes Jacob to, like, drop the likes.

Enjoying 2.0 so far, but could not finish the “Almaty too Hotty” episode due to the glaring absence of expertise on Russia and Central Asia. I understand that not everyone is familiar with CSTO or where to find Kazakhstan on a map, but plenty of people are. Next time you discuss Russia, please bring in a SME. For all of our sakes.

The new crew is obviously a very bright group, but Scott and Alan are speaking too quickly to follow. Like the disclaimers at the end of a pharmaceutical advertisement, words are clipped off in order to stuff as many as possible into a limited time. Professionalism for radio, and now podcast, speaking implies speaking to a listening audience, whereas this trend to speak so quickly ignores the straining listener for a insider tete a tete. Speaking this quickly in a public forum, comes across as an immature competition for the smartest talker, when editing one’s thoughts to come to a few, meaningful points takes more discipline. The listener is left trying to fill in the clipped-off, swallowed words and run-on sentences to make sense of it; it is especially annoying because I know that there is valuable content here, but it is out of reach. So, guys, please edit yourselves and take professional voice training.

Losing one of my favorite podcasts was upsetting, but gaining a new favorite podcast made it a little easier. I’m still expecting Shane to greet me after the intro, but I’m getting used to the change. I’m looking forward to how the new crew makes this pod their own!

I have been a long time listener and supporter of RationalSecurity, but am questioning keeping it on my podcast list. Scott loves to hear himself talk, but I don’t. This morning, on the Nuclear episode, he even started mansplaining Quinta about the Havana Syndrome. And when he is waxing on, Scott has no idea how to modulate his voice so he isn’t fading in and out in volume. I enjoy the topics covered on Rational Security, but question if I can stand Scott enough to continue listening.

I’ve been listening since nearly the beginning, and grew accustomed to the old gang. When it was announced they were shutting their doors, I was genuinely sad. It felt like loosing a friend. Then Ben announced there would be a 2.0, and I got excited again. It’s been a few weeks now and the hosts just don’t have the same energy, pizzazz, chemistry. This was especially highlighted when Shane guested and—for one brief episode—the magic was back. But it only made the following episodes that much more muted, to me. I know folks have moved on, but the thing that made the show so special is gone now.

It's getting more causal and fun each time, 2.0 team, keep up the good work. Most importantly, just want to make sure we all appreciate how much Bryce's voice sounds like Ken Burns.

Great conversations with smart people. What could be better?

This continues to be a great show. Keep it up.

Loved the show today

Ben: I’m so happy to hear there will be a 2.0. I look forward to seeing- or should I say hearing- the direction you will take this forum. I hope you maintain the informed dialog in a conversational style. Nancy in Dallas

Really enjoy this podcast, look forward to your next version, whatever form it may take.

Universe Best Possible Outcome! Thank you all!

That is, based on half of the hosts’ surnames. Sorry! Great show, making me feel that I’m in the room with four very clever, well-informed, and articulate wonderful nerds (of national security). I may not be smarter after listening to a show, but listening makes me think that I am. New data: Ben’s new omnidirectional microphone may stay connected, but it’s lousy from some other perspective. I think it picks up too much room ambient reflective noise. Shane and Susan’s mikes are drastically better. It sounds likeBen and Tammy are in a closet. Yuk! As of 3 Feb, the Wittes’s (Tamara/Ben) new omnidirectional microphone is still in use and dramatically worse than everyone else’s. Susan and Shane sound like normal people. The Wittes’s sound like they’re in the bathroom or the kitchen. Seriously. YUK. 🥲🥲🥲

Y’all ——-> 😌😁🙂😎 🥺 <— Me

Very informative content but entertaining as well. I will miss it.

RatSec crew—sorry for waiting until the last week to stop freeloading and rate and review. I don’t like podcasts, but this has been one of two I listen to every episode of. Very smart people offering informative discourse on national security while still keeping things engaging. I’m sad it’s ending and I will miss it very much. So long and thanks for all the fish.

Top notch podcast. Can’t wait for more!

I will give the show 5 stars if they get good microphones.

A delightful crew of smart and thoughtful people discuss news in the national security world. Best of luck - a longtime (4 year) listener